As of right now, there is no US federal vaccine mandate, says Dana Loesch.
Consequently, companies who have pre-complied may be in legal trouble, she explains.
"...it's not even a law. Biden screwed over all these employers.”
Ms Loesch’s argument is that the Biden-announced Vaccine pass "mandate” has no existence in law since it exceeds the powers of the US federal government. As the Wall Street Journal has reported, the states have plenary power over health and safety. The “vaccination mandate” announced by Biden is nothing but a press release. The legal process which the White House would have to do to make this order an official mandate has not even begun. If it were begun there would be a six month confirmation process. The mandate would be immediately struck down by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional and the Biden people must be aware of that extreme likelihood. So they are trying to fool everybody into thinking a press release is law. Companies are going along with this deception.
It has the air of a sly deal between the White House and major companies, globally connected pharmaceutical companies most vitally, to dally around the law they cannot openly defy in order to institute a de facto rule by the corporation. Rule by the corporation is the definition of fascism, as Mussolini said of his own fascist regime.
Who could be behind Joe Biden slipping this knife between the ribs of the American Constitutional Republic? Who owes his power and his fortune to international Big Pharma companies such as Pfizer and to the World Health Organization? Who is the Grey Eminence behind the doddering idiot in the Oval Office? Do I even have to name Anthony Fauci? Surely not.
The good news for American defenders of law and civil rights is buried in the reluctance of the White House to actually make the mandate official by completing the legal process. The Biden team has more respect for the law than do the CDC or Anthony Fauci or Pfizer and Moderna, or so it would seem.
But this quiet good news is not shared by us up here in Canada, nor apparently in Australia and New Zealand. Under our more British-based political systems in Canada and Australia and New Zealand, Vaccine Passport mandates have been proclaimed by various executive orders. The clear implication is that the American system of constitutional law is a much stronger guarantor of civil rights than our systems. In Canada our constitution, especially as it was modified by Pierre Trudeau, is an addendum on our traditional British-legacy Parliamentary system, based as it is on the concept of the Sovereignty of Parliament which was promulgated by the parliament of Great Britain in the mid 18th century.
The new constitution which Pierre Trudeau forced all the provinces but Quebec to ratify has as an addendum the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the constitution and the Charter is subject to a “Notwithstanding" clause which allows any province to ignore the guarantees of civil rights in the Charter. I feel sure that this clause was put in to satisfy Quebec and facilitate Quebec’s acquiescence to the new constitution despite never officially ratifying it. The notwithstanding clause has never been officially invoked but the weakness of our Constitution and Charter was demonstrated under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when Bill C-16 was passed making discrimination on the basis of "gender identity” an addendum on the Constitution and Charter.
This was done by a simple Act of the federal Parliament which the provinces have no authority, apparently, to either ratify or reject. Thus the primacy of our federal Parliament over the Constitution and Charter was re-established. The passage of C-16 established by precedent that our federal Parliament can change our Constitution at its will. In the USA, changing the Constitution can be done by an act of Congress enacting a Constitutional Amendment only after a laborious process. To actually change the body of the US Constitution has never been done because the Constitution itself makes the political process of doing so almost impossible.
Thus it was that the United States fundamentally severed itself from the British Parliamentary democracy to found a true Constitutional Republic. This current ongoing legal and constitutional crisis imposed by the global campaign of the World Health Organization to impose a global dictatorship has laid bare the fatal weakness of Parliamentary democracies. The potential for Canada, Australia and New Zealand to be transformed almost overnight into a police state has been revealed. In our countries democracy has failed.
The long established custom among our people of obeying the law has now been used to destroy the law by precedent while most of us have no idea what has happened. Because of the weakness of parliamentary systems, because of the absolute nature of parliamentary democracy, the people of our countries are stripped of the power to resist by the normal means of “voting the bastards out.” All that is needed to nullify the power of the vote is for the leader of the party in power in Parliament to arrange a solid parliamentary majority and dictatorship under the frail cloak of democracy can last for decades. Our leaders used to respect the parliamentary traditions which mitigate this danger. But they don’t anymore.
Certainly in Canada the unopposed authority of the Prime Minister’s Office has been established by political circumstances during the Prime Ministership of Steven Harper. Harper was the first Prime Minister to ever be censured by the House of Commons. In our parliamentary tradition he should have resigned and called an election. But Harper refused to do that. He knew that our House of Commons and our Senate and our Governor General have no power to stop the Prime Minister, boss of the Prime Minister’s Office and leader of a parliamentary majority, from doing anything he wishes to do.
Now that the absolute dictatorship of the Prime Minister’s Office has been activated, the only obstacle to the change into a totalitarian, absolutist Police State must be the mass resistance of protesters in the street.
Or maybe, just maybe, our police officers will resist being ordered to break their oath to defend our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, if officers of the law will take arbitrary rules to be equal in weight to the law, there is in effect no law but force.